Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides

[Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni,



just for clarification: Do we intend to list all options in the draft ???

They all have pros and cons ...



Anyway I think we need a structure like below in the draft for example

in section 4. Is it inline with your intention? Shall I prepare some text

around this items for the call on Wednesday?



4.x DP solution requirements

List of prerequisites for a proper solution on an x-PE:

1, to distinguish PWs going through (operation label-swap) and PWs need DetNet serving (e.g., FRER)

2, to handle PW-label collisions (without major implementation difficulties)

3, to work with both centralized control and distributed control (signaling)



4.y DP solution toolset

Description of the toolset discussed so far:

A, L-label: additional label between t-label and PW-label

B, different PW-labels per segment: similar to the MS-PW label allocation mechanism

C, e2e PW label: no change of the PW-label (same PW-label value between T-PE nodes)

D, d-id label: additional label used as T-PE identification

E, Flow-ID outside of the label stack



Cheers

Bala'zs



-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 3:07 AM
To: Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] about identity labels.. was Re: new versions of my slides



Jouni,



On 2017-03-06 07:36, Jouni Korhonen wrote:

>

<snip>

>>

>> - global as the special purpose labels, seems unlikely

>> - global as unique with in the domain, though we know there is a

>> scaling  problem

>> - global for one sender, not that different from d-id, other that the

>> placment in the stack

>>

>> ???

>

> In my small mind I reasoned it to be unique within one domain. Since the identity would now be 32 bits (there is no need to restrict it to 20 bits since it is part of the _encapsulation_header_ not the label stack), the scaling concern is more relaxed. Assuming each node in the domain would like to be able to name 4k unique detnet flows of their own then the domain could host 1M such detnet nodes.. not too bad for one domain.



My earlier calculations estimated that we would have about the number of PWs between any pair of T-DetNet-PEs would be about 400 and the number T-DetNet-PEs about 1000.



32 bits is  4 000 millions, so there is ample number of flow id's even if we would have to configure a range on each T-DetNet-PE.



So you look at the flow-id and then compare the CW/Seq #, right?



Now, range configuration is a kludge, can we find a way to avoid it, maybe d-pw + node-id would work, all this would have to happen in the context of the (outgoing) d-pw anyway, right?



/Loa



>

> - Jouni

>

>

>

>

>>

>> /Loa

>>>

>>> Carlos

>>>

>>>> - Jouni

>>>>

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list

>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

>>>

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]

>

> _______________________________________________

> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt

>



--





Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]



_______________________________________________

Detnet-dp-dt mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt